FBI and White House Slapped Down By Judge in Major Censorship Case

Are the wheels finally coming off the White Houses censorship train? Its too soon to say for sure, but the Biden administration and the FBI got slapped down by a federal judge on Wednesday in a landmark case centering on the issue.

The judge has ruled that the FBI cant shield special agent Elvis Chan from being deposed in a lawsuit brought by Missouri AG (and soon-to-be senator) Eric Schmitt and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry.

Officials in Louisiana and Missouri recently launched a lawsuit against the Biden administration seeking information about alleged collusion between the FBI, the DoJ, and other agencies with social media companies to censor information unflattering to the White House. Lawyers for the White House attempted to prevent some of the depositions from taking place, including that of FBI special agent Elvis Chan. Agent Chan had been identified as having worked directly with Meta to remove certain news stories on Facebook. But U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana shot down the request, allowing the depositions to go forward. Needless to say, there are probably some very nervous people biting their fingernails in the White House this week.

As RedState previously reported, Meta (Facebook) was at the center of censoring the Hunter Biden story prior to the 2020 election, possibly swinging the outcome. Its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, inadvertently admitted on Joe Rogans podcast that the FBI had come to them with more than a wink and nudge, suggesting that the story was actually Russian disinformation. Making matters worse, the FBI obviously knew at that point that the laptop story was true given they had been in possession of the hard drive for ever a year.

Why was the FBI going to Facebook (and presumably, other social media companies) to knock down a negative story about Joe Biden and his son? The only logical answer given what we know is that they were trying to influence the election. Mission accomplished, I suppose.

The lawsuit doesnt stop with Chan, though. Figures working for the NIH, the CDC, and other government agencies are also being targeted. Thats because, for years, they have obviously worked with social media companies to push the administrations chosen narratives. The censorship of the COVID-19 lab leak theory has been one of the more high-profile examples, but hardly the only one.

For all the talk of threats to democracy, Id suggest its a pretty big threat to our electoral system to have the federal government violating rights by proxy in order to benefit partisan goals. It also happens to probably be illegal. What the Biden administration did and likely continues to do is anti-American tripe, attempting to put their fingers on the scale even in the face of truthful information.

Lastly, can we talk about how abusive it is to even try to shield Chan from being deposed under the guise of national security? Im pretty sure the FBI lying to harm its political opponents (which conservatives clearly are) isnt an issue of national security. Its an issue of corruption, and the fact that the Biden administration might end up with egg on its face (and possibly legal sanctions) isnt an excuse to hide the facts from the public any longer.

Trending on Redstate Video

The rest is here:

FBI and White House Slapped Down By Judge in Major Censorship Case

Censorship by surrogate: Why Musks document dump could be a game changer – The Hill

  1. Censorship by surrogate: Why Musks document dump could be a game changer  The Hill
  2. TUCKER CARLSON: Behind Twitter's censorship of the Hunter Biden story  Fox News
  3. Hunter Biden laptop bombshell: Twitter invented reason to censor Post's reporting  New York Post
  4. James Woods Vows to Sue Over Twitter Censorship of His Hunter Biden Tweet  The Epoch Times
  5. Elon Musks Twitter Files details censorship, suppression of information  Business Standard
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Here is the original post:

Censorship by surrogate: Why Musks document dump could be a game changer - The Hill

11/11/22 Branko Marcetic on the DHSs Role in Online Censorship

Download Episode.

Scott is joined by Branko Marcetic of Jacobin to discuss the recent revelations that the Department of Homeland Security has been guiding tech platforms on what they should censor. They observe some specific cases where platforms like Facebook and Google changed rules and suppressed stories to help prop up the U.S. governments narratives, even when they proved false. Scott and Marcetic also talk about the potential for cross-idealogical coalitions to fight back against these blatant and dangerous government interventions in the information space.

Discussed on the show:

Branko Marcetic is a writer for Jacobin Magazine, a fellow at In These Times, and host of the 1/200 podcast. He is the author of Yesterdays Man: The Case Against Joe Biden. Follow him on Twitter @BMarchetich.

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State and Why The Vietnam War?, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; and Thc Hemp Spot.

Get Scotts interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack.

Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG.

Go here to see the original:

11/11/22 Branko Marcetic on the DHSs Role in Online Censorship

Positively dystopian: Judge cites Orwell to block censorship law …

In an order thatbegins by quoting the famous opening line of George Orwell's dystopian novel1984, a federal judge on Thursday blocked key provisions of a Florida censorship law that aimed to restrict how state university professors teach race, gender, and U.S. history.

"'It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen,' and the powers in charge of Florida's public university system have declared the state has unfettered authority to muzzle its professors in the name of 'freedom,'" Judge Mark Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, an Obama appointee, wrote in his scathing decision, which temporarily halts enforcement of parts of the lawchampionedby Republican Gov. Ron DeSantisa possible 2024 presidential candidate.

"To confront certain viewpoints that offend the powers that be, the state of Florida passed the so-called 'Stop WOKE Act in 2022redubbed (in line with the state's doublespeak) the 'Individual Freedom Act,'" Walker continued. "The law officially bans professors from expressing disfavored viewpoints in university classrooms while permitting unfettered expression of the opposite viewpoints. Defendants argue that, under this act, professors enjoy 'academic freedom' so long as they express only those viewpoints of which the State approves. This is positively dystopian."

The Thursday decision, which concludes that the GOP law violates the First Amendment rights of public university faculty and students, marks the second time Walker has ruled against the "Stop WOKE Act" in recent months. In August, the judgeblockedthe part of the law pertaining to private businesses.

Adriana Novoa, a University of South Florida history professor and a plaintiff in the case, said in astatementthat Walker's Thursday ruling is a win "for the institutions of this country."

"I hope that the courts will defend the existence of a public education that cannot be manipulated by politicians to push any ideology, now and in the future," Novoa added.

Part of a recent wave ofcensorship lawsadvanced by Republicans in Florida and across the U.S., the "Stop WOKE Act" wasbilled asan attempt to "give businesses, employees, children, and families tools to fight back against woke indoctrination."

But civil liberties groups and other critics of the law have argued it is both unjustifiable andexceedingly vaguein its mandates, creating achilling effecton educators as they attempt to teach their classes under the threat of state retaliation.

Emily Anderson, an assistant professor of International Relations and Intercultural Education at Florida International University,toldtheMiami Heraldin August that "these policies have really led to increased efforts to silence and surveil academic speech."

"Academic speech matters, because it's a fundamental freedom that is really how our university system is grounded," said Anderson. "When we have policies that threaten speech, in my view, it shadows threats to all other protected rights."

In his ruling, Walker points to theeight specific conceptsoutlawed that are under the measure, including the notion that "such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex to oppress members of another race, color, national origin, or sex."

"Despite [Florida officials'] insistence that the professor plaintiffs' proposed viewpoints must serve as a mirror image for each prohibited viewpoint, the proposed speech needs only to arguably run afoul of the prohibition," Walker wrote.

Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)whichsuedFlorida officials over the censorship lawsaid that "faculty members are hired to offer opinions from their academic expertisenot toe the party line."

"Florida's argument that faculty members have no First Amendment rights would have imperiled faculty members across the political spectrum," said Steinbaugh.

Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a statement that Walker's ruling "is a huge victory for everyone who values academic freedom and recognizes the value of inclusive education."

"The First Amendment broadly protects our right to share information and ideas, and this includes educators' and students' right to learn, discuss, and debate systemic racism and sexism," Sykes added.

See the rest here:

Positively dystopian: Judge cites Orwell to block censorship law ...

nypost.com

A little-noticed federal lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden, is uncovering astonishing evidence of an entrenched censorship scheme cooked up between the federal government and Big Tech that would make Communist China proud.

So far, 67 officials or agencies including the FBI have been accused in the lawsuit of violating the First Amendment by pressuring Facebook, Twitter and Google to censor users for alleged misinformation or disinformation.

Victims of the Biden-Big Tech censorship enterprise include The Post, whose Hunter Biden laptop expos was suppressed by Facebook and then Twitter in October 2020 after the FBI went to Facebook, warning it with great specificity to watch out for a dump of Russian disinformation, pertaining to Joe Biden, with an uncanny resemblance to our stories.

We allege that top-ranking Biden administration officials colluded with those social media companies to suppress speech about the Hunter Biden laptop story, the origins of COVID-19, the efficacy of masks, and election integrity, is how the lawsuit was summarized by intrepid Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who is leading the action.

The censorship related to alleged misinformation about pandemic lockdowns, vaccines and COVID-19, and included material from the esteemed infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists associated with the Great Barrington Declaration, which proved over time to be correct and eventually much of which was adopted as official policy by the CDC.

Defendants include FBI special agents Elvis Chan and Laura Dehmlow, who gave Facebook that detailed disinformation briefing right before The Post was censored; White House press secretaries, current and former, Karine Jean-Pierre and Jen Psaki; Dr. Anthony Fauci, the presidents chief medical adviser, and former White House senior COVID-19 adviser Andrew Slavitt; counsel to President Biden Dana Remus; the DHS over the disbanded Disinformation Governance Board; the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; the FDA; the State Department; and the US Election Assistance Commission.

Last month a federal judge ordered a reluctant Fauci and Jean-Pierre to hand over their records, so the case is progressing nicely.

This civil action by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, in partnership with such red-pilled lawyers as Jenin Younes at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, overlaps with a separate lawsuit by former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, whose legal victories so far have forced Twitter to reinstate his account after he was banned (although the cat-and-mouse game continues as he is currently suspended again).

Berensons legal discovery unearthed internal Twitter documents and Slack conversations showing Biden administration officials instructed the social media company to de-platform him because he was dissenting from the official line on school lockdowns and the efficacy of vaccines.

He was viciously attacked for tweeting that schools should be opened: people called me a ghoul a lot. [But] Twitter and Facebook prevented a real debate and discussion about the value of school closures Is there anyone who thought we did the right thing in fall of 2020 and 2021 by allowing teacher unions and Democrats to keep schools closed?

His evidence-backed view that school lockdowns were being driven by teacher unions, not data, and would do long-term harm to children, has been proven correct. Similarly, his view was correct that vaccines were not stopping the transmission of COVID and thus mandates were pointless. Yet he was silenced, and no debate was allowed.

Whether Im right or wrong you have to have an open discussion. The First Amendment protects even lies. Thats how it should be on these platforms. The efforts to regulate speech and call something disinformation is demonizing folks and saying theyre un-American [for dissenting], he said. What I have is evidence that I was specifically targeted in private communications because I was being an ahole on Twitter.

In a White House meeting in April 2021, Twitter representatives were asked one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasnt been kicked off from the platform, a Twitter employee wrote.

Slavitt, then with Bidens COVID response team, complained specifically about Berenson, even though Twitter said he had broken no rules.

They really wanted to know about Alex Berenson, the Twitter employee wrote on Slack.

Andy Slavitt suggested they had seen data [visualization] that had showed he was the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public, the employee wrote. Ive taken a pretty close look at his account, and I dont think any of its violative.But over the next four months, as opposition to vaccine mandates grew, the Biden administration ratcheted up the pressure.

Berenson identifies as the final blow a public statement by Biden on July 16, 2021, that social media companies were killing people by encouraging vaccine hesitancy.

A few hours after Bidens comment, Twitter suspended my account for the first time. On August 28, 2021 Twitter banned me for a tweet that it has now acknowledged should not have led to my suspension, he said. My argument is that the White House turned these companies into extensions of the state. By putting explicit pressure on Twitter, they made it an extension of the state, whether willingly or not.

The Biden administration violated my First Amendment rights.

Last month, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Twitter and other social media platforms dont have an unlimited right to discriminate against speech they dont like.

The Platforms are not newspapers. Their censorship is not speech, the court said. The First Amendment protects speech: it generally prevents the government from interfering with peoples speech.

Berenson has another lawsuit afoot, against the Biden administration, vaccine manufacturer Pfizer, and Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb, the former head of the FDA who was instrumental in getting him banned, as documents from his legal discovery show.

This month, Berenson published on his substack an email that Gottlieb wrote to Twitter in August 2021, complaining about his various tweets criticizing Fauci, and claiming, This is why Tony needs a security detail.

But nothing Berenson said about Fauci would create any need for extra security. He just called Fauci arrogant, a skilled courtier and mocked his claim that attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.

Berenson was hardly alone in criticizing Fauci. At least half the country felt the same way. In any case, he was entitled to voice his opinion, so hes suing Gottlieb.

Gottlieb has not denied Berensons claims in his frequent TV appearances. Just this Sunday he was interviewed on the CBS flagship program Face the Nation, to break down the false claims being spread online about COVID vaccine mandates for children.

But CBS never disclosed that Gottlieb is a member of Pfizers board, earning close to $400,000 for his trouble. That is more relevant than his past FDA employment. Of course, Pfizer is a big advertiser, so maybe CBS didnt want to draw attention to the fact that its favorite vaccine expert is compromised.

These lawsuits are the only obstacle between Americans and a frighteningly pervasive new federal censorship scheme on behalf of shadowy interests, using disinformation as a catchall excuse.

More here:

nypost.com

Censorship, Surveillance and Profits: A Hard Bargain for Apple in China …

On Chinese iPhones, Apple forbids apps about the Dalai Lama while hosting those from the Chinese paramilitary group accused of detaining and abusing Uyghurs, an ethnic minority group in China.

The company has also helped China spread its view of the world. Chinese iPhones censor the emoji of the Taiwanese flag, and their maps suggest Taiwan is part of China. For a time, simply typing the word Taiwan could make an iPhone crash, according to Patrick Wardle, a former hacker at the National Security Agency.

Sometimes, Mr. Shoemaker said, he was awakened in the middle of the night with demands from the Chinese government to remove an app. If the app appeared to mention the banned topics, he would remove it, but he would send more complicated cases to senior executives, including Mr. Cue and Mr. Schiller.

Apple resisted an order from the Chinese government in 2012 to remove The Timess apps. But five years later, it ultimately did. Mr. Cook approved the decision, according to two people with knowledge of the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Apple recently began disclosing how often governments demand that it remove apps. In the two years ending June 2020, the most recent data available, Apple said it approved 91 percent of the Chinese governments app-takedown requests, removing 1,217 apps.

In every other country combined over that period, Apple approved 40 percent of requests, removing 253 apps. Apple said that most of the apps it removed for the Chinese government were related to gambling or pornography or were operating without a government license, such as loan services and livestreaming apps.

Yet a Times analysis of Chinese app data suggests those disclosures represent a fraction of the apps that Apple has blocked in China. Since 2017, roughly 55,000 active apps have disappeared from Apples App Store in China, according to a Times analysis of data compiled by Sensor Tower, an app data firm. Most of those apps have remained available in other countries.

More here:

Censorship, Surveillance and Profits: A Hard Bargain for Apple in China ...

Rapid acceleration in US school book censorship leads to 2,500 bans …

There is a rapid acceleration of book censorship occurring across the US, with more than 2,500 different book bans taking place over the past school year, a new report has found.

A total of 1,648 individual book titles, many of them that mention issues relating to race or sexuality, were the subject of bans by school districts in 32 states in the last school year, according to the new analysis.

More than 5,000 schools nationally have had books barred from access by students in libraries and classrooms, according to the report compiled by Pen America, a non-profit that supports freedom of expression in literature.

There has been a proliferation of organized efforts to advocate for book removals, the report states, from rightwing politicians in states such as Texas, Georgia and Wisconsin to at least 50 groups that have sprung up either in person or on Facebook.

Many of the books have been banned for simply featuring people who identify as LGBTQ+, with a third of all banned books from April to June featuring people with such identities, often under a spurious justification that the titles are obscene. Race and discussion of the USs racist past is also a target of book bans, with 40% of titles banned featuring prominent characters of color.

While we think of book bans as the work of individual concerned citizens, our report demonstrates that todays wave of bans represents a coordinated campaign to banish books being waged by sophisticated, ideological and well-resourced advocacy organizations, said Suzanne Nossel, chief executive officer of Pen America.

This censorious movement is turning our public schools into political battlegrounds, driving wedges within communities, forcing teachers and librarians from their jobs and casting a chill over the spirit of open inquiry and intellectual freedom that underpin a flourishing democracy.

While book bans have long been a part of Americas education fabric, the Pen report suggests they are now driven less by the complaints of individual parents and more by organized, ideological groups and overt pressure from politicians.

About 40% of the book bans in the past year have been connected to political pressure or legislation designed to restrict and reshape teaching, the report estimates. In November, for example, Henry McMaster, the Republican governor of South Carolina, demanded that the book Gender Queer: A Memoir, by Maia Kobabe, be removed from school libraries for being sexually explicit and pornographic.

Kobabes book was the most banned book in the past school year, banished by 41 school districts, followed by All Boys Arent Blue, by George M Johnson, banned in 29 districts, and Out of Darkness, by Ashley Hope Perez, prohibited in 24 districts. Among the most banned authors is Toni Morrison, the Nobel laureate. Texas led the way with book bans, followed by Florida and Pennsylvania.

The push to ban certain books has prompted backlash in some states. Shortly after the Texas state lawmaker Matt Krause called for the states school libraries to consider 850 books for possible removal, a group of librarians created a broad online campaign to fight the bans, deluging state politicians with tweets and emails over the issue.

In Wisconsin, meanwhile, a school districts decision to ban the title When the Emperor Was Divine, a book by Julie Otsuka about the internment of Japanese-Americans during the second world war, provoked a furious response from local teachers, parents and students, who organized protest rallies over the move. Such bans have continued unabated across the US, however.

This rapidly accelerating movement has resulted in more and more students losing access to literature that equips them to meet the challenges and complexities of democratic citizenship, said Jonathan Friedman, a lead author of the Pen report.

The work of groups organizing and advocating to ban books in schools is especially harmful to students from historically marginalized backgrounds, who are forced to experience stories that validate their lives vanishing from classrooms and library shelves.

Read more from the original source:

Rapid acceleration in US school book censorship leads to 2,500 bans ...

White House insists it’s not using Facebook censorship portal despite Jen Psaki’s ‘flagging’ admission – New York Post

  1. White House insists it's not using Facebook censorship portal despite Jen Psaki's 'flagging' admission  New York Post
  2. Fact Checking as the New Censorship Surer Than the Old Type  Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence
  3. Probe launched into 'taxpayer-funded censorship campaign'  Santa Barbara News-Press
  4. Probe launched into Homeland Securitys 'taxpayer-funded censorship campaign'  The Center Square
  5. Report: U.S. DHS worked directly with Facebook, Twitter to censor "disinformation"  Niche Gamer
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

View post:

White House insists it's not using Facebook censorship portal despite Jen Psaki's 'flagging' admission - New York Post